Thursday, November 27, 2014

Some wanted a production quota cut; others didn’t and in the end it all bottled down to what the Saudis wanted – a rollover of the level set at 30 million barrels per day (bpd) since December 2011. So as the 166th meeting of OPEC ministers ended, Al-Naimi departed Helferstorferstrasse 17 - OPEC's HQ in Vienna, Austria having got his wish.

Had a cut been enforced and the Saudis not respected the agreement, it would have been meaningless. So the announcement did not come as much of surprise to many analysts, yours truly including.

Rather calmly, OPEC has also suggested it would hold its next meeting in June as normal and extended El-Badri’s term until December 2015. But the Oilholic suspects a US$60 per barrel floor would be tested sooner than most expect. Will an extraordinary meeting be called then? Will OPEC let things be until it meets again June? What about Venezuela, Iran and Nigeria who will leave Vienna thoroughly dissatisfied?

It is indeed credible to assume that OPEC will grin and bear the oil price decline in the interest of holding on to its 30% share of the global crude markets for the moment. But for how long as not all are in agreement of the decision taken today?

Barely minutes after El-Badri stopped speaking, Brent shed a dollar. Within the hour it was trading below $73 a barrel while the WTI slid below $70. We’re now formally in the territory where it becomes a game of nerves. For the moment, none of the major oil producing nations, both within and outside OPEC, are willing to cut production even when demand for oil isn’t that great.

Should bearish trends continue, will someone blink first? Will finances dictate a production decline for someone? Will some or more of the producers come together and take coordinated action with OPEC?
These are the million barrel questions!

The latter option was attempted in Vienna bringing the Russians and Mexicans to the table, but the Saudis ensured it didn't succeed. The next four months ought to be interesting. On that note, it's good night from OPEC HQ. Analysis and a post mortem to follow over the coming days, but that’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

Having had enough of briefing scribes and analysts over the past few days and giving little away, Saudi Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi told all surplus inquirers to bugger off at this morning’s pre-conference OPEC media scrum.

The only problem is the current supply scenario is unlike anything we’ve witnessed over the last two decades in the Oilholic’s humble opinion, with plenty of the crude stuff around much lower than anticipated demand.

Contrary to what some might feel here at OPEC HQ, Al-Naimi is not ignoring this profound change but rather tackling it head on for his country first and foremost. It’s an instinct called self-preservation.

Separate discounts on asking price offered to Asian and US buyers by Saudi Aramco, along with anecdotes about the Saudis sending direct feelers on longer term deals with buyers in the Far East are stacking up. If the US is not buying much, China, India, Japan and South Korea are still in the market for and when (not if) there is an uptick demand.

The Saudis do not want to see a return to the 1980s. If that’s the case, what’s afoot at OPEC with Al-Naimi not attaching importance to a cut in output, is collateral damage. Upsetting a few who don’t like you anyway, thereby making a dysfunctional organisation more dysfunctional should matter little in a high stakes game.

Furthermore, Al-Naimi’s soundbites leading up to and at the OPEC meeting seem to suggest he feels the price correction is likely to continue well into 2015. Barely days before the OPEC meeting, Moody’s said on Monday that the steep drop in prices since the middle of this year has led it to lower its pricing assumptions for Brent and WTI by $10 in 2015 and $5 in 2016.

Its revised average spot prices assumption for Brent stand at $80 per barrel for 2015 and to $85 per barrel in 2016, and for WTI at $75 per barrel in 2015 and $80 per barrel in 2016 and thereafter. Steve Wood, managing director at Moody’s says, "Global demand has not kept pace with strong oil production worldwide, leading to the recent drop in oil prices and to our revised price assumptions. We expect that rising demand for crude will put a floor beneath crude prices in 2015 and beyond, limiting further price drops and pointing to a gradual correction.”

As a footnote, Moody's also changed its outlook for the global independent exploration and production sector to negative from positive, for the global oilfield services and drilling sector to negative from stable, and for the global integrated oil and gas sector to stable from positive.

Most non-governmental Middle Eastern commentators known to the Oilholic see the price dropping to as low as $60 per barrel. Agreed, the price might get temporary support from a potential OPEC production cut along with colder chimes that a Northern Hemisphere winter brings with it. Yet, a further drop in price is all but inevitable before supply correction and improving economics provide a floor later on in 2015.

In the meantime some at OPEC will continue to struggle, especially Venezuela, a country that needs a fiscal breakeven of over US$160 per barrel, as will Iran which would need $130 upwards. Fitch Ratings’ Paul Gamble says Ecuador is another OPEC member to keep an eye on if the oil price slide continues. This is in marked contrast to IMF estimates about Saudi Arabia needing an average oil price of $90.70, UAE $73.30, Kuwait $53.30 and Qatar $77.60.

Some at OPEC have a very different problem - that of finding new buyers and diverting the crude stuff originally extracted with the US in mind. That includes Angola and Nigeria.

At a media scrum earlier in the day, Angolan oil minister Jose Maria Botelho de Vasconcelos told the Oilholic that ensuring diversity of the country’s client base was crucial.

Having been on record as being “unhappy” about the current oil price, de Vasconcelos said, “The market suffers ups and downs. As an exporting nation we are looking to diversify our pool of importing partners. This includes the obvious push to Asia and Europe.”

Choosing not to comment about entering into a bidding war with fellow OPEC member and neighbour Nigeria, de Vasconcelos said there was room for everyone and new partners to ensure stability of supply.

Meanwhile, from the standpoint of forex markets, Kit Juckes, Global Head of Forex at Société Générale, says if OPEC fails to deliver any oil price bolstering production cuts this afternoon in Vienna, oil will probably fall further in the months ahead. “That will further anchor bond yields, probably undermine the dollar after a very strong run and support higher-yielding currencies.”

“We'd get a bigger reaction to a successful output reduction, of course than to the lack of change that is now widely expected. If oil prices do continue their fall the winners are more likely to be the emerging markets currencies rather than the G10 ones.” Its 14:30GMT and there’s no agreement yet. That’s all for the moment from Vienna folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

It’s been a long six months between OPEC meetings with the oil price slipping almost 35% since June and the organisation's own average monthly basket price of 12 crude oils dropping 29%.

Returning to Vienna for the 166th OPEC Meeting of ministers, the Oilholic finds his hosts in a confused state. It’s not only a case of “will or won’t” OPEC cut production, but also one of “should or shouldn’t” it cut.

As yours truly wrote in his regular quip for Forbes – the buyers’ market that we are seeing is all about market share. That matters way more than anything else at the moment. Of course, not all of OPEC’s 12 member nations are thinking that way at a time of reduced clout in wake of rising non-OPEC production and the US importing less courtesy of its shale bonanza. For some, namely Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria – the recent dip is wreaking havoc in terms of fiscal breakevens.

For them, something needs to be done here and now to prop up the price with a lot of hush-hush around the place about why a cut of 1 million barrels per day (bpd) would be just the ticket. Yet there are others, including Kuwait, UAE and Saudi Arabia who realise the importance of maintaining market share as they can afford to.

Just listen to the soundbites provided by Saudi oil minister Ali Al-Naimi. The current problem of “oversupply is not unique” as the market has the capacity to stabilise “eventually”, he’s said again and again in Vienna, ahead of the meeting over umpteen briefings since Monday. And if the Saudis don’t want a cut, it’s not going to happen.

Secondly, as this blogger has said time and again from OPEC – in the absence of publication of individual quotas, even if a cut materialises how will we know it’ll not be flouted as has often been the case in the past? In fact, it’ll be pretty obvious within a month who is or isn’t sticking to it and then the whole thing unravels. Perhaps enforcing stricter adherence would be a good starting point!

Finally, only for the second time in all of one’s years of coming to OPEC have there been so many external briefings by all parties concerned and that number of journalists attending the ministers' summit.

To put things into perspective, while the Oilholic has been here for every OPEC meeting since 2007, more than twice the usual number of analysts and journalists have turned up today indicative of the level of interest. I think the extraordinary meeting in 2008 was the last time such a number popped into town.

All were duly provided with plenty of fodder to begin with as Saudi Arabia met with Russia, Venezuela, and Mexico to “discuss the oil market” and establish a “mechanism for cooperation” to cite Venezuelan oil minister Rafael Ramirez.

While everyone talked the talk, no one walked the walk with the mini meeting ending in zero agreement. It’d be fair to say the Saudis have kept everyone guessing since but Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak expressed scepticism whether OPEC would cut production from its stated 30 million bpd level.

On the sidelines are plenty of interesting headlines and thoughts away from the usual “oil price falls to” this or that level “since 2010”. Some interesting ones include – French investigation of Total’s dealings in Iran is still on says the FT, Reuters carries an exclusive on the chaos over who’ll represent Libya at OPEC, why Transportation ETFs are loving cheap oil explains ETF Trends, BloombergBusinessWeek says Iran is still pitching the 1 million bpd cut idea around and after ages (ok a good few years) the BBC is interested in OPEC again.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Despite much being afoot in the crude oil world, there’s only one place to start and that’s the ongoing farce over the Keystone XL pipeline extension project. A continuation of US President Barack Obama’s dithering over approval of the transnational pipeline extension (from Alberta, Canada to Texas) is not a major surprise. However, an unassailable truth flagged up by none other than comedian and political satirist Jon Stewart certainly is!

It seems many controversial decisions, including Keystone XL’s approval, were delayed by the Obama administration until after the US mid-term elections undoubtedly to calm worried Democrats (who were in for, and eventually did get, an electoral pasting) so that they didn’t have to take a political stand on these issues one way or another. So when Obama delayed approval of Keystone XL (again!) in April this year, that helped the President’s mates both for and against the project.

Especially, senators Mary Landreiu (D-Louisiana), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) and Kay Hagan (D-North Carolina) all in red states favouring the project, who then used the delay as a pretext to criticise and "distance themselves" from the president.

Conversely, blue states Democrats thought they got points for criticising the pipeline extension project to pander to opposing sentiments of their respective electorates. It was supposed to be a win-win situation; except for one thing - they all LOST and Landreiu, who is facing a tough run-off is going to, chuckled Stewart on TheDaily Show broadcast for November 6 evening.

This week, the "old" senate rejected approval of Keystone XL, one of its last acts before the new Republican controlled senate convenes. At which point, the "new" senate will approve it and then one assumes the President would veto it. Then Democrat presidential candidate(s), including one Hillary Clinton who is said to be in favour of the pipeline, will take their respective positions either denouncing or praising the decision and so it goes.

According to the splendid Stewart, it’s a popular tactic known as the “Chickensh*t gambit”. (To view the clip in the US click here, for the UK, click here, for elsewhere not quite sure where!)

Both those for and against the project should despair over the state of affairs. However, on the bright side they’ll be plenty of material for Stewart to bring a bit of laughter into our lives. As for the Canadian side, they are a patient bunch and among their ranks are some who quietly (and somewhat correctly) believe their country's need for the pipeline is diminishing as China's footprint on the global crude oil market grows ever bigger than that of the US.

Meanwhile, by sheer coincidence barely days after the Oilholic went on Tip TV to discuss the challenging climate for oilfield services (OFS) companies (including why the Kentz takeover in August by SNC-Lavalin would not have happened now at the price it did back then), came the mother of all moves – Halliburton’s for Baker Hughes.

In case you’ve been on another planet and haven’t heard, Halliburton has agreed to buy rival Baker Hughes in a cash and shares deal worth US$34.6 billion. The transaction has been approved by both companies' boards of directors and is expected to close in late 2015, pending regulatory approval. As the oil price has fallen by a third since the summer, demand for OFS has cooled and a coming together of the second and third placed services providers makes sense in a cyclical industry.

Nonetheless, the announcement and speed of agreement took many by surprise. Dave Lesar, CEO of Halliburton, told CNBC's Squawk on the Street program on Tuesday that Baker Hughes brings complimentary product lines to the merger which his company does not have.

“Production chemicals is one, artificial lift is another, so from that standpoint they [Baker Hughes] do have some technology that we do not have. Plus they have some fantastic people in their talented organisation. Combine that with out talent and I think we’re putting together the industry bellwether.”

“Both companies are growing. We’re going to hire 21,000 people just at Halliburton this year, not only blue collar but white collar and professionals. You add that to capability and the growth we’re seeing out at Baker…I think it expands career opportunities.”

Lesar also said he had a top notch team in place to address anti-trust concerns which might involve divestments of up to $7.5 billion. The Halliburton CEO added that the response from big ticket clients, including several National Oil Companies (NOCs), had been great. “Feedback from almost of our customers, including NOCs has been pretty positive, where a stronger, more developed organisation can help them in ways neither Baker nor Halliburton could have done standing on our own.”

“Furthermore, we would not have done this deal if I did not believe that we could get this through the regulatory bodies,” Lesar said. There you have it, and it’d cost $3.5 billion in payments to Baker if he is wrong and regulators block the deal.

The Halliburton CEO largely sidestepped commenting on the Keystone XL farce and the oil price tumble, except adding on the latter point that: “We’re not in the bunker yet!” As OPEC meets on November 27, the market is in a sort of “pause still” mode. Brent is lurking just below $80 level, while the WTI is around the $75 level (see right, click to enlarge).

The Oilholic’s gut instinct, as one told Tip TV, is that OPEC has left it too late to act and should have made a call one way or another via an extraordinary meeting when the Brent fell below $85. So if they cut now, will it have the desired impact?

Meanwhile, Producers for American Crude Oil Exports (PACE), says repealing the ban on US crude oil exports will not only create hundreds of thousands of jobs and grow the economy, it will benefit consumers by “lowering gasoline prices” contrary to opinion expressed in certain quarters. That conclusion, it says, is supported by no less than seven independent economic studies. These include the Brookings Institution, IHS Energy, Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, and the US Government Accountability Office, among others.

Finally, Fitch Ratings says the 25% drop in the oil price since July is likely to lift economic growth prospects, improve terms of trade, and have a potentially positive credit impact for a number of Asian economies if the lower prices are sustained below $90 level through 2015.

Most major Asian economies - including China, Japan, Korea and Thailand - would see an effective overall income boost from sustained lower oil prices, the agency said. In addition, countries with large oil import needs facing external adjustment pressures such as Indonesia and India are among the best positioned to see a positive impact on sovereign credit profiles, although the broader policy response will matter too, it added. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

In the challenging world of energy trading, fortune favours the prepared. Whether one is brave enough (or not) comes second and not having a clear strategy would be borderline foolishness.

Given such a backdrop, almost inevitably, there are resources aplenty targeting those who feel the need to be better informed and equipped. Among the latest reference sources, industry veteran and academic Dr Iris Marie Mack’s book Energy Trading and Risk Management published by Wiley is a pretty compelling one.

The Oilholic instantly warmed up to the book barely a chapter in, struck by its practical approach, balanced tone, contextualised narrative and a genuine desire on the author’s part to define terms and methodologies for the benefit of those with a mid-tier investment knowledge base.

Furthermore, the instructive narrative seeks to bring about a holistic understanding of how energy markets work to begin with, leading on to an adequate treatment of risk, speculation and portfolio diversity tenets. The format in which Energy Trading and Risk Management is minutely sub-sectioned point to point is simply splendid. So should you wish to salami slice and pick up bits of the subject, it would serve you just as well as a cover to cover read through.

Conversely, if you are confident enough to skip the basics and go straight through to concepts and formulas, the sequential flow of text in each chapter helps you breeze through basic definitions usually quoted in boxed text on to what you are after.

Accompanying the text are charts, case studies, background briefs, notes on macro drivers and definitions at various points split into ten weighty sub-sectioned chapters in a book of around 270 pages. From contango to the modern portfolio theory, from risk management in the renewables business to mitigation in an ever changing market climate – it’s all there and duly referenced.

While the Oilholic appreciated Dr Mack's work in its entirety, a chapter on exotic energy derivatives (which follows a passage on the plain vanilla variety) stood out for this blogger. One would be happy to recommend this title to energy professionals, fellow energy analysts and those with a desire to pursue energy trading as a career pathway.

It would most definitely appeal to entrants finding their feet in the market as well as established participants wanting to refresh their thinking and methodologies. Ultimately, for every reader this title is bound to morph from being an informative and educational book at the point of first reading, to an invaluable reference source as and when subsequently needed. That makes it worthy of any energy sector professional’s bookshelf.

Friday, November 14, 2014

Supply side oil and gas analysts including this blogger, as well as traders of (physical not paper) crude oil contracts feel like tearing their hair when some speculator or the other hits the airwaves citing “risk premium”, “instability premium” or more correctly “geopolitical premium” as the pretext for going long on oil no matter how much of the crude stuff is in the pipeline.

As we are currently witnessing one of those rare moments in the oil market's history when surplus supplies and stunted demand are pretty much neutering the speculators’ geopolitical pretext, you might wonder what the fuss is all about.

Make no mistake; while the selective deployment of geopolitical sentiments in betting on the oil price has always been open to debate, the connection between the oil industry and geopolitics is undeniable. And should you need a crash course, academic Klaus Dodds has the answer.

In his contribution about geopolitics for Oxford University Press’ A Very Short Introduction series, Dodds breezes you through the subject via a concise book of just under 160 pages, split into six chapters.

When covering a subject this vast for a succinct book concept with case studies aplenty, the challenge is often about what to skip, as much as it is about what to include. The author has been brilliant in doing so via a crisp and engaging narrative.

Having enjoyed this book, which is currently in its second edition, the Oilholic would be happy to recommend it to the readers of this blog. As Dodds himself notes: “It’s essential to be geopolitical” and amen to that!

However, be mindful that it is meant to help you understand geopolitics and contextualise geopolitical influences. It is neither a weighty treatise on the subject nor was intended as such. The title itself makes that clear.

Anyone from an analyst to a GCSE student can pick it up and appreciate it as much as those in a hurry to get to grips with the subject or are of a curious disposition. Should you happen to be in this broad readership profile, one suggests you go for it, and better still keep it handy, given the times we live in!

Monday, November 10, 2014

Both crude oil benchmarks are more or less staying within their ranges seen in recent weeks. That would be US$80-85 per barrel for Brent and $76-80 per barrel for WTI. ‘Short’ is still the call.

While Russia is coping with the current oil price decline, the country’s treasury is clearly not enjoying it. However, given the wider scenario in wake of Western sanctions, the Russian rouble’s decline actually provides momentary respite on the ‘crude’ front and its subsequent free float some much needed positivity.

The currency’s fall this year against the US dollar exasperated as sanctions began to bite. While that increases the bill for imports, Russian oil producers (and exporters) actually benefit from it. There is a very important domestic factor in the oil exporters’ favour – the effective tax rate paid by them as oil prices decline falls in line with the price itself, and vice versa. While a declining rouble hurts other parts of the economy reliant on imports, it partially helps offset weaker oil prices for producers.

According to calculations by Fitch Ratings, if the rouble stabilises near about its current level and the oil prices hold steady around $85 per barrel next year, an average Russian producer should report 2015 rouble operating profits broadly in line with 2013, when oil prices averaged $109.

“In this scenario Russian oil companies' financial leverage may edge up, especially for those producers that relied most heavily on international finance, because their hard currency-denominated debts will rise in value. Given that Fitch-rated oil companies, such as LUKOIL, GazpromNeft and Tatneft, all have relatively low leverage for their current ratings, this should not trigger rating actions,” says Dmitry Marinchenko, an Associate Director at the ratings agency.

The primary worry for Russia at the moment would be a decline in prices below $85 (as is the case at the moment) which would certainly hurt profits, as would a sudden recovery for the rouble while oil prices continue to tumble. Fitch reckons most Russian oil companies have solid liquidity and would comfortably survive without new borrowing for at least the next couple of years.

“However, they may need to reconsider their financing model should access to international debt markets remain blocked for a long time, because of sanctions and overall uncertainty over the Ukrainian crisis. Nevertheless, their fundamentals remain strong, and we expect them to maintain flat oil production and generate stable cash flows for at least the next three to four years, even with lower oil prices,” Marinchenko adds.

There is one caveat though. All market commentary in this regard, including Fitch’s aforementioned calculation, is based on the assumption that the Kremlin won’t alter the existing tax framework in an attempt to increase oil revenue takings. Anecdotal evidence the Oilholic has doesn’t point to anything of the sort. In fact, most Russian analysts this blogger knows expect broader taxation parameters to remain the same.

If deliberations over the summer at the 21st World Petroleum Congress in Moscow were anything to go by, the country was actually attempting to make its tax regime even more competitive. A lot has happened since then, not just in terms of the oil price decline but also with relation to the intensification of sanctions. Perhaps with near coincidental symmetry, both the rouble and oil prices have plummeted by 30% since the first quarter of this year, though the free float attempt has helped the currency.

The Oilholic feels the Kremlin is inclined to leave more cash with oil companies in a bid to prop up production. With none of the major producers blinking (as one noted in a recent Forbes column), the Russians didn’t either pumping over 10 million barrels per day in September. That’s their highest production level since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

For the moment, the Central Bank of Russia has moved to widen the rouble's exchange-rate corridor and limit its daily interventions to a maximum of $350 million. This followed last week's 150 basis points increase in its benchmark interest rate to 9.5%. The central bank’s idea is to ease short-term pressure on dollar reserves and counteract the negative fiscal impact of lower oil prices. Given the situation is pretty fluid and there are other factors to be taken into account, let’s see how all of this plays over the first quarter of 2015.

Meanwhile, the Russians aren’t the only ones grappling with geopolitics and domestic political impediments. We’re in the season of silly politics in wider Europe as well. The European Union’s efforts to wean itself of Russian gas remain more about bravado than any actual achievement in this regard. As one blogged earlier, getting a real-terms cut in Russian imports to the EU over the next decade is not going to be easy.

Furthermore, energy policy in several jurisdictions is all over the place from nuclear energy bans to shale exploration moratoriums, or in the UK’s case a daft proposal for an energy price freeze by the leader of the opposition Labour party Ed Miliband to counter his unpopularity. All of this at a time when Europe will need to invest US$2.2 trillion in electricity infrastructure alone by 2035, according to Colette Lewiner, an industry veteran and energy sector advisor to the Chairman of Capgemini.

“Short of nationalisation where the state would bear the brunt of gas market volatility, a price freeze would not work. In order to mitigate effects of the freeze, companies could cut infrastructural investment which the UK can ill afford or they’ll raise revenue by other means including above average prices rises ahead of a freeze,” she told this blogger in a Forbes interview.

No wonder UK Prime Minister David Cameron is concerned as Miliband's proposal has the potential to derail much needed investment. In a speech to the 2014 CBI annual conference (see right) that was heavy on infrastructure investment and the country’s ongoing tussle with EU rules, Cameron did take time out to remind the audience about keeping the climate conducive for inward investment, especially foreign direct investment, in the UK’s energy sector.

“To keep encouraging inward investment, you need consistency and predictability. That is particularly important in energy,” hesaid to an audience that seemed to agree.

Investment towards infrastructure and promoting a better investment climate usually goes down well with the business lobby group. However, in the current confusing climate with barely six months to go before the Brits go to the polls, keeping the wider market calm when an opponent with barmy policies, could potentially unseat you is not easy.

The Oilholic feels the PM’s pain, but is resigned to acceptance of the country’s silly election season, and yet sillier policy ideas. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

The Oilholic's Tweets

Meet The Oilholic

I am a London based financial writer and oil & gas sector analyst. I commenced my career in 1997 with internships at
several newspapers and CNBC Asia. I have since worked for Informa, CNBC Europe, Canadian Economic Press,
UNI, Infrastructure Journal and IDG among others. At present, I am a columnist for Forbes. Apart from UK-based
work, I have also reported from Canada, China, EU, India, Hong
Kong, Japan, Middle East, Russia, Switzerland and USA. I have written about the oil
& gas sector since 2004 including spot reports, coverage of OPEC summits,
analysis of oil corporations’ financials and exploration data.

The Oilholic's Affiliations

Legal Stuff

Copyright

Content: The author of this blog/website - Gaurav Sharma - retains copyright of any articles and blog posts published here. Unless the author’s written consent is obtained in advance, you may not reproduce, sell, publish, distribute, retransmit, disseminate, perform, display, broadcast, create new works from, or commercially exploit the content available here which is protected under UK copyright law.Photographs & graphics: Copyright and courtesy of third party images and graphs on this blog/website is duly acknowledged and clearly mentioned as, when and where applicable. Additionally, the author of this blog/website - Gaurav Sharma - retains copyright of any images photographed by him or charts and graphs drawn by him as stated where applicable. Unless the author’s written consent is obtained in advance, you may not reproduce, sell, publish, distribute, retransmit, disseminate, perform, display, broadcast, create new works from, or commercially exploit the graphics, photography and broadcast material available here which is protected under UK copyright law.

Legal Disclaimer

Content on this blog/website is for informational purposes only. Commentaries, analysis and articles published are based upon information gathered from various sources believed to be reliable, complete and accurate. However, no guarantee can be made about the validity of the believed sources. All statements, commentaries and expressions on this blog/website including that of the author are opinions and not meant implicitly or explicitly as recommendations, investment advice or solicitation to trade oil and gas products, place spot or futures trades, CFDs or spreadbets. Oil and gas markets can be volatile and opinions may change without notice. This website is an opinion forum and should be interpreted as such. Its content is neither explicitly nor implicitly aimed at endorsing any trading platform(s), pattern(s) or product(s). Links from this website, if any, are being provided for convenience, informational and reference purposes only. They do not constitute an implicit or explicit endorsement by the author of this blog/website in relation to any of information contained in these links or any products, services or opinions offered on such links. The author of this blog/website bears no responsibility for the accuracy, content, or any other matter related to any external site listed here or for that of subsequent links.